Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What a mess! (Commander avionics refit)

AdamFrisch wrote:

Michael I have never heard of an avionics installation where everything has worked perfectly on first flight.

Then you are not talking to the right people …

Major INOPs like yours is NOT the norm.

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

All I can speak of is my experience and it has happened to me everytime I’ve done panel work. And I’ve used the high end shops as well, not just the lower rung. Look at most aviation forums and every second thread is about the avionics not working….

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 29 Aug 07:30

It is strange, to me as an electronics engineer who knows a fair bit about avionics, that a shop which has the test kit e.g. an IFR4000, IFR6000 etc etc will send out a plane with bits which they worked on not working.

But it’s happened to me, and every shop I have used for installation work has done it.

It has also resulted in threats of legal action when reported here but don’t let anyone get put off by that, so long as the company name is not posted.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Adam, it is not acceptable to have this happen. Glitches are one thing but major new components not working is just sloppy.

EGTK Oxford

I agree it’s not acceptable. That’s why we’re having a dispute over the invoice and the services rendered.

your saga really amazes me. You buy an airplane and 2 years later it is still not in an acceptable shape. First you are kept waiting by some expert for essential work on it, then you are served very badly by the avionics shop and now you need to fix the pressurisation? Heavens, what did that guy do the first year or so? And that avionics shop, who would sign off an airplane like that? Isn’t that a question to be asked to the local branch of the FAA?

Sorry, you appear to have been served absymally badly by the organisations who worked on your plane. This is one horror example on how things should not happen.

LSZH, Switzerland

I can see a way to achieve this situation, with a plane, with a house, with a car, with anything… and that is by getting work done without being there in person periodically to check it.

Whether this applies to Adam I have no idea.

I had a TAS605 system installed over a 2 week period by a “reputable” UK firm. I popped up halfway through to take a look and found this nice neat bit of wiring

The “installer” said that hatch is rarely used…

The rest of the report is here and no discussion of who did it please because they threatened litigation over some past thread here

I doubt American installers are better than European installers but there is much more business out there so with due diligence it should be easier to find a good firm, whereas here in Europe the more DD you do the faster you will abandon any idea of letting somebody work on your plane.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

When installing the equipment in the aircraft the shop must have done that according to the installation description. I would assume that there are also post installation testing that needs to be signed off.
What does those test reports say? Have they been filled in?
If the installation is not done according to the installation description is it then in compliance with the STC?

ESTL

Anders wrote:

When installing the equipment in the aircraft the shop must have done that according to the installation description. I would assume that there are also post installation testing that needs to be signed off.
What does those test reports say? Have they been filled in?
If the installation is not done according to the installation description is it then in compliance with the STC?

Anders is spot on.

ALL major avionics equipment STC instructions include a “check-out” survey that must be accomplished BEFORE signing off on the installation and the first flight post install.

This clearly was missed on multiple items.

Last Edited by Michael at 03 Sep 10:30
FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

Often the problem with exotic complex aircraft is that shops are not qualified to fly them and need the owner. Also owners tend to push them to get an initial install done and test it.

I have never received my aircraft after a large avionics project with obvious faults that the installer did not point out to me. However, I have never had a larger install that didn’t require at least one additional appointment to resolve issues.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top